Subject: [Isis-wg] draft-ietf-isis-auto-encap-01.txt

From: "Philip Christian" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 13:33:29 +0100

Question:-

Page five of this draft lists a number of encapsulations that a router can
advertise as being able to terminate.
These include GRE, IPv4 in IP and IPv6 in IP.

The ITU-T treats this differently, as it mandates that GRE must be supported
(although that doesn't mean that others couldn't be too).

Do folks think that it is a good idea to allow different encapsulation
modes? or would it be better to just describe one (which I guess would have
to be GRE)?

I am just thinking that when talking interoperability, choice is a bad
thing.

Comments?

Philip

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-isis-auto-encap-01.txt

---

From: Tony Przygienda <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:16:06 -0700

Philip Christian wrote:

> Question:-
>
> Page five of this draft lists a number of encapsulations that a router 
> can advertise as being able to terminate.
> The ITU-T treats this differently, as it mandates that GRE must be 
> supported (although that doesn't mean that others couldn't be too).
>
> modes? or would it be better to just describe one (which I guess would 
> have to be GRE)?
>

The question should be rather put as 'what do the operational folks want 
and will deploy' so I would
encourage those to come forward with an answer.  

    thanks

    -- tony

PS: My guts say GRE today and maybe IPv6 in IPv4 in the future if they 
get IPv6 gear that
doesn't support GRE ...

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg